I spent quite a bit of time on Sunday night looking at the results of the European Parliament elections and reading a wide array of sources that were doing early analysis. I wanted to understand what happened, but also what the implications are for not only Europe but the United States.
There are several themes that are being promoted, but some of them mask or distort the voters’ actual intentions. In the United Kingdom, for example, the big story is that Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party won the most seats. The secondary story is that the two main parties were decimated, particularly the Tories. This leads to the perception that supporters of Brexit had a big night and the Conservative Party will have to choose a committed Brexiteer to replace Theresa May as prime minister. Yet, supporters of the Remain position actually got the majority of the votes. If this had truly been a second referendum on leaving the European Union, the notion would have been rejected.
As for the fascist parties in general, the narrative is that they improved their numbers in parliament, but not by as much as people feared. Marine Le Pen’s party in France won a plurality, for example, but also did less well than in the last E.U. elections. In Germany, the fascists improved their results, but didn’t do as well as they had done in the domestic elections. In Spain, the Socialists actually had a great night. In Austria, the fascists took a beating due to recent scandals. It was only in Italy where fascism seemed to have a triumph.
The biggest overall story is that the center-left and and center-right coalitions will lack a majority for the first time in the E.U.’s history. Yet, much of the support on the left moved to more progressive parties. Throughout northern Europe, the Green Party did exceptionally well, and actually came in second place in Germany. It seems that the elections will move ideological center of the parliament to the left, although this is not emphasized in much of the reporting.
The final major narrative is that turnout was exceptionally high.
The implications for America are hard to gauge. It does support the suspicion that there will higher than normal voter participation in 2020. It shows that the immigration issue and nationalist sentiment are still powerful forces capable of winning pluralities if not majorities. It also suggests that the uptick in fascist attitudes is likely to inspire a fear-based backlash. Climate also proved to be a potent mobilizing force. Discontent with traditional parties could translate into more third party voting in America, but given the results of the 2016 election, I find this doubtful. On the other hand, Democratic primary voters may opt for a non-traditional candidate, even if there are few signs that the left is in a risk-taking mood at the moment. It remains to be seen if Trump can retain his outsider appeal or will be punished for being the leader of a traditional party.
On the whole, I don’t know that we’re better able to predict what will happen in America in 2020 than we were before we saw the results from Europe. I see both danger signs and reasons for optimism.
Many people have harangued Corbyn for his muddled Brexit message, but for a long time it held the party together; the argument for triangulation made political sense. I’m not sure if it’s working anymore. And yet, no one has a clear mandate for anything. There is simply paralysis. I’ve seen projections that if the votes for EU in UK were a general election, the Tories would be reduced to ZERO seats, and the Brexit Party would win 450+. It’s obviously not a fair comparison because FPTP thinking would kick in and many people would vote more strategically. Still, I think it’s time to get off the muddled message, take a risk, and go all out Remain. Fact is, no one knows where the chips would truly fall. It’s pretty scary.
As for the rest of the continent, things generally look mixed as you detailed, with Italy being the main blight. The Danish Social Democrats have adopted immigration policies to the right of some of the radial right and extreme right parties while keeping their left economic views — that’s the path to moral oblivion. The German Greens show the most promise, and things aren’t too bad in Spain and Portugal. Sweden’s current government is red-green, and that’s probably the best path forward. It’s definitely the time of monsters, though.
It suggests to me that the centrist Democrats are overestimating the appeal of ‘traditional’ politics. It is so annoying to constantly see political analysts, whether from the parties or from the media, making knee-jerk conclusions by analogy with some situation from the 60s, 70s, or 80s. There’s always some parallel to be found, yet we are in a completely different world and indeed right now, with Trump, in truly uncharted waters. Despite this, parallels are cherry picked to make some preconceived argument, and it’s always the same argument.
The ‘radical centrists” (Krugman) don’t like Trump and hate the left Democrats because they believe they would just hand the election to Trump. Meanwhile the radical centrists (as Krugman points out) have practically no constituency. Why is that?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/opinion/howard-schultz-president.html
Two examples: For some reason the comparisons re impeachment are usually made with Clinton, yet Nixon is much more relevant. But even Nixon is pretty far from Trump. So why make analogies? Because you’re too lazy or too scared to actually observe and actually think? Yes, it is scary to face unprecedented situations. Not that you can’t find parallels from history, but you’ve got to actually think, and that’s hard to do if you haven’t done it in the last 30-40 years.
A very recent meme: “Is Barr serving the president, or the presidency?” The argument that he’s serving “the presidency” (which of course is what he says) ignores the fact that no president has ever governed remotely like Trump. That may be Barr’s conception of serving the presidency, but if anybody entertains that argument for one second, then they are actually normalizing Trump’s/Barr’s conception of the autocratic, imperial presidency. Which in any normal sense is the opposite of serving the presidency, because “presidency” has to be seen as part of constitutionality. Yet this is taken up by the media according to the usual “he said/she said” pattern. Smith says the world is round; Jones says it’s flat. Who’s right? Let’s discuss.
This is why nobody seems to know what the hell is going on. I look for good analysis because I’m desperate for it. I find it occasionally, but with greater difficulty than ever before …
We don’t have a Green party. But the nearest thing to it is the supposedly insane left-wing Democrats.